New Vocabulary II Part 1

[Plumps]

Would be neat being able to poke the bot, it has not detected New Vocabulary II—Part 1 yet.

Maybe it's still sleeping

Hmmm, the sentence Samsiyul perey nìwan seems to make pey transitive...

[Lance R. Casey]

Hmmm, the sentence Samsiyul perey nìwan seems to make pey transitive...

It's "always" been transitive -- or, rather, ambitransitive:

• Ulte omum oel futa tìfyawìntxuri oeyä perey aynga nìwotx from here
• Nìaynga oe perey nìteng (ibid)
• tsun pivey trrit from here

[Na'viteri Bot]

New Vocabulary II?Part 1

The Vocabulary Committee has been working overtime! The February submission was particularly rich, inventive . . . and massive. It?s going to take me a while to work through all the suggestions, discussions, and examples, and getting out the results ... <a href="http://naviteri.org/2011/02/new-vocabulary-ii%e2%80%94part-1/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">→</span></a>

Source: New Vocabulary II?Part 1

[Plumps]

Hmmm, the sentence Samsiyul perey nìwan seems to make pey transitive...

It's "always" been transitive -- or, rather, ambitransitive:

• tsun pivey trrit from here

This was the one I could never find. Thanks for that Otherwise, especially with the use of the topic I always had the thought that it was intransitive.
Still, I would have expected it to be just samsiyu perey nìwan... but maybe there is still something about transitivity that I don't get 

[Kemaweyan]

I am totally confused Why Samsiyul perey nìwan and Pol säfpìlit verar wivan? There is no agentive in example Nga pelun wäperan?, though. I agree with Tsm. Plumps that it should be Samsiyu perey nìwan. And I think Po säfpìlit verar wivan would be correct because there is modal construction with var, kefyak?

tsun pivey trrit from here

Hmm.. I'm confused again I'm not sure that it's correct. There are many mistakes in that sentence, that was created not by Pawl, so I think he could miss this one (transitivity of pey), but pey actually is intransitive and *tsun pivey trrit is incorrect... I think we need to ask a confirmation.

[Neyn'ite Te Tsahìk Txeptsyìp'ite]

*pokes head in* what'd I miss, ma tsmuk?

[Kemaweyan]

Not you I mean Pawl missed this mistake (of course, if it's a mistake, but I think so).

[Plumps]

I am totally confused Why Samsiyul perey nìwan and Pol säfpìlit verar wivan? There is no agentive in example Nga pelun wäperan?, though. I agree with Tsm. Plumps that it should be Samsiyu perey nìwan. And I think Po säfpìlit verar wivan would be correct because there is modal construction with var, kefyak?

At least the nìwan sentence is clarified by him in a commentary ... I'm really anxious about what his explanation for the var wivan sentence is going to be.

[Neyn'ite Te Tsahìk Txeptsyìp'ite]

kehe, ma Kemaweyan, I meant I'm not sure what's being discussed

[Carborundum]

I am totally confused Why Samsiyul perey nìwan and Pol säfpìlit verar wivan? There is no agentive in example Nga pelun wäperan?, though. I agree with Tsm. Plumps that it should be Samsiyu perey nìwan. And I think Po säfpìlit verar wivan would be correct because there is modal construction with var, kefyak?

At least the nìwan sentence is clarified by him in a commentary ... I'm really anxious about what his explanation for the var wivan sentence is going to be.

Definitely. That comment left me most intrigued.

[Kemaweyan]

Tam, irayo

I'm really anxious about what his explanation for the var wivan sentence is going to be.

Eltur tìtxen si nìtxan..

[Neyn'ite Te Tsahìk Txeptsyìp'ite]

*slowly walks away*

[Plumps]

*slowly walks away*

Please don't
This is about the fact that we didn't have information up to this point whether pey is really transitive or intransitive. The third link that Lance provided points to a discussion of a sentence looked over by Frommer but it's not directly from him, so we are a bit suspicious of that Maybe he just missed it back then.

The problem with var wivan is that var behaved with a modal syntax so far, meaning oe var tivaron, "I keep hunting", (notice, no -l on oe, same as oe tsun tivaron, "I can hunt") now, Frommer uses it together with the agentive and patientive to say "keep secret".
That's what puzzles us

[Kä'eng]

Maybe modal var is a zero-valency verb. Normally you remove the agent of a modal verb's subordinate clause, because it's redundant (Oe new oel yivom teylut) but if the modal verb didn't have a subject, you'd have to leave it in, wouldn't you? :p

[Carborundum]

Maybe modal var is a zero-valency verb. Normally you remove the agent of a modal verb's subordinate clause, because it's redundant (Oe new oel yivom teylut) but if the modal verb didn't have a subject, you'd have to leave it in, wouldn't you? :p

Oh, I like this theory a lot! It fits well, as we have never seen var used with an argument, as far as I'm aware.

[wm.annis]

Maybe modal var is a zero-valency verb. Normally you remove the agent of a modal verb's subordinate clause, because it's redundant (Oe new oel yivom teylut) but if the modal verb didn't have a subject, you'd have to leave it in, wouldn't you? :p

A zero-valency verb would have no subject or object.

I suspect a stylistic or word-order matter is in play.

[Carborundum]

Maybe modal var is a zero-valency verb. Normally you remove the agent of a modal verb's subordinate clause, because it's redundant (Oe new oel yivom teylut) but if the modal verb didn't have a subject, you'd have to leave it in, wouldn't you? :p

A zero-valency verb would have no subject or object.

And it doesn't, does it? In pol säfpìlit verar wivan, po and säfpìl are both arguments of wan, no?

[wm.annis]

And it doesn't, does it? In pol säfpìlit verar wivan, po and säfpìl are both arguments of wan, no?

No.  Po is the subject of var and the (covert) subject of wan.

[Carborundum]

And it doesn't, does it? In pol säfpìlit verar wivan, po and säfpìl are both arguments of wan, no?

No.  Po is the subject of var and the (covert) subject of wan.

Are you certain? In vivar 'ivong Na'vi, I'm pretty sure Na'vi is not the subject of var. This looks similar.

[wm.annis]

Are you certain? In vivar 'ivong Na'vi, I'm pretty sure Na'vi is not the subject of var. This looks similar.

I am — and I do not get to say this often about Na'vi grammar — 100% certain of my analysis here.  And Na'vi is the subject of var in that phrase.